what is an acceptable % increase of fat when clean bulking

[themorganator4]

as above really,

what is a good or realistic rate of fat gain in % when clean bulking?

i.e 5% fat increase 3% etc. I'm just after an idea on what to expect something like: I put on 20kg and gained 2% BF etc.

[Corbets]

as above really,

what is a good or realistic rate of fat gain in % when clean bulking?

i.e 5% fat increase 3% etc. I'm just after an idea on what to expect something like: I put on 20kg and gained 2% BF etc.

Whatever you want.

Personally, I find myself to be ok with my self-image between about 10 and 15 or so percent (give or take, since I don’t go out for a DEXA scan or anything), and so I try to bulk and cut within those ranges. But it’s entirely up to you, there’s no such thing as an “acceptability” standard.

[SuffolkPunch]

It's impossible to measure small changes accurately so putting a number to it is kind of futile.

You can expect to get a little bloating from the increase in calories so don't overreact to that when it happens. All you can really do is make a subjective judgement about what is "too fluffy" for your liking. Whatever you do, you shouldn't be cutting a mass gain phase short over less than about 6-8 weeks (a mesocycle) otherwise you might be chopping and changing too much.

Weight gain is a little more reliable. If you are gaining more than 2-3lbs a month, that is probably too much.

[Luclin999]

what is an acceptable % increase of fat when clean bulking?

The short answer, whatever you find acceptable and think that you can deal with potentially going through the process of losing again.

Keep in mind that every pound of unwanted fat is ultimately equal to roughly a week in a moderate calorie deficit to get rid of again so the whole point of a lean bulk is to minimize those fat gains to as little as possible overall.

It also depends on your personal definition of what a "lean bulk" is. For some people it could mean up to a 500 cal/day surplus while for others it could be as little as an extra 40g of protein per day over maintenance.

Personally, for myself I think that anything over 15% BF is unaesthetic and simply too much to carry around, however I also have terrible genetics regarding how my body stores fat meaning that for me, "15%" means that I look decently athletic everywhere except for my lower stomach and back where the fat comes back first so I end up with a 30"-31" waist but a 34"-35" "flabby area right below that which frankly looks terrible until I get back below 12%.

Other people however depending upon their genetic disposition for fat storage and overall muscle mass, can still look somewhat decent at 15% or even higher body fat levels.

So again, it all comes back to the person and what they are comfortable with.

[jk202]

Really dependent on how long you have been training. A newer lifting can accumulate lean mass at a faster rate than someone who is 5-10 years in.

As you get more advanced, the amount of time it takes to gain 5 lbs of muscle increases, you you'll likely be in a surplus longer and accumulate a bit more fat in the process.

[Nicksosure1]

Well, acceptable is subjective. For example, right now if body fat % climbed more rapidly than I originally planned, it wouldn't bother me as long as my strength gains are satisfying and if I, for whatever reason, could not progress at the same rate without adding that fat at the same rate.

Really just depends on your goal priorities, where you are currently, and what YOU are accepting. I would just use a mirror and strength gains as your progression gauge. If you get to a spot where you want to shift gears because of how you are starting to look aesthetically, nothing wrong with lowering cals or cutting if you're healthy and think you're in a spot to do so.

It's more about what you think and your goals than what is generally accepted when attempting a lean bulk.

[Hammersia]

Really dependent on how long you have been training. A newer lifting can accumulate lean mass at a faster rate than someone who is 5-10 years in.

As you get more advanced, the amount of time it takes to gain 5 lbs of muscle increases, you you'll likely be in a surplus longer and accumulate a bit more fat in the process.

Broscience

[jk202]

Broscience

How sad is your life that you spend the time to quote literally every single one of my comments, regardless of what section of the forum they are in? Literally. Every. One.

[rhadam]

Broscience

I like how you supported your post with evidence.

[Hammersia]

I like how you supported your post with evidence.

It’s JK making unsupported claims therefore he needs to provide the evidence duh

[jk202]

It’s JK making unsupported claims therefore he needs to provide the evidence duh

It's supported by anyone who understands how lifting and gaining muscle works. I understand why you're confused. You're primed to make noob gains any year now

https://i.imgur.com/djfrBDt.jpg

[Hammersia]

It's supported by anyone who understands how lifting and gaining muscle works. I understand why you're confused. You're primed to make noob gains any year now

https://i.imgur.com/djfrBDt.jpg

You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts

Please post link to scientific studies proving your claims, otherwise withdraw and apologise gracefully.

[Corbets]

You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts

Please post link to scientific studies proving your claims, otherwise withdraw and apologise gracefully.

Negged, because you seem to have problems with the basics here. If he was posting some kind of extreme claim, yeah, I’d want to see it backed by links. But the fact that you can gain muscle less quickly as you reach more advanced stages of lifting is well supported, and not something that needs to be “backed up” by links any more than “the sky is blue” or “creatine helps a lot of people” at this point.

[Hammersia]

Negged, because you seem to have problems with the basics here. If he was posting some kind of extreme claim, yeah, I’d want to see it backed by links. But the fact that you can gain muscle less quickly as you reach more advanced stages of lifting is well supported, and not something that needs to be “backed up” by links any more than “the sky is blue” or “creatine helps a lot of people” at this point.

So you can’t prove it either

Negged yourself then

[rhadam]

It’s JK making unsupported claims therefore he needs to provide the evidence duh

I'm not going to search through pubmed, but if you actually believe that the rate of skeletal muscle acquisition is the same for untrained vs trained subjects you're either a troll or ignorant.

[hardyboysare]

So you can’t prove it either

Negged yourself then

This should keep you busy it has a nice section on bulking:-

https://sci-fit.net/bulking-deficit-gaining/

Namely the study conducted by Garthe et al (2012) which highlighted that the more advanced the individual the longer a bulk cycle should be due to inability for gain significant LBM and likewise would cause extra 'fat' to occur over a longer period of time to meet the same LBM gain as a novice.

The excess energy intake in a weight gain protocol should therefore be considered carefully since greater rates of gain are likely to include larger increases in body fat storage in already strength-trained athletes.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...91.2011.643923

Likewise you can look at Lyle Mcdonalds page here and clearly see the recommend weight gain per level of ability varies so in order to gain the same weight of LBM advanced individuals would require longer bulks and most likely to gain more fat due to the caloric surplus phase being longer.

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...scle-mass-gain

Both links are fully backed by scientific studies if you would like to investigate further.

[CommitmentRulz]

So you can’t prove it either

Negged yourself then

Hammersia has 97+ percent of his posts on the misc...

[Tommy W.]

This will vary greatly. Some of the guys just looking for strength gains are ok with half fat and half muscle, in fact sometimes even more fat than muscle. The guy strictly after aesthetics will put on less. As you become more experienced and the muscle gains slow down you have to be very careful with your diet so that you don’t end up putting on mostly fat. This will mean really dialing in your diet and usually necessitating fewer overall calories or at a minimum not raising

[Hammersia]

This should keep you busy it has a nice section on bulking:-

https://sci-fit.net/bulking-deficit-gaining/

Namely the study conducted by Garthe et al (2012) which highlighted that the more advanced the individual the longer a bulk cycle should be due to inability for gain significant LBM and likewise would cause extra 'fat' to occur over a longer period of time to meet the same LBM gain as a novice.



https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...91.2011.643923

Likewise you can look at Lyle Mcdonalds page here and clearly see the recommend weight gain per level of ability varies so in order to gain the same weight of LBM advanced individuals would require longer bulks and most likely to gain more fat due to the caloric surplus phase being longer.

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...scle-mass-gain

Both links are fully backed by scientific studies if you would like to investigate further.

Top of the very first page you quote says “we don’t have a ton of studies on advanced lifters therefore these recommendations are slightly speculative”

Just lol

As a scientist myself, I find the credulousness and lack of critical thinking of basically all exercise “studies” .... disturbing

[hardyboysare]

Top of the very first page you quote says “we don’t have a ton of studies on advanced lifters therefore these recommendations are slightly speculative”

Just lol

As a scientist myself, I find the credulousness and lack of critical thinking of basically all exercise “studies” .... disturbing

So because you disregard all exercise studies because you don't agree with them, and supply absolutely no evidence for critical analysis other then your personal feeling......

Definitely someone from the misc section. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Good luck.

[Hammersia]

So because you disregard all exercise studies because you don't agree with them, and supply absolutely no evidence for critical analysis other then your personal feeling......

Definitely someone from the misc section. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Good luck.

What you on about? Literally the first thing the paper you quote says is “we don’t have the evidence”

What do you want me to say about that?

“No evidence ? Fine let’s just carry on making suppositions”

Jeez pathetic

[Tommy W.]

As a scientist myself, I find the credulousness and lack of critical thinking of basically all exercise “studies” .... disturbing

So please define what would be considered non credulous? Anecdotal evidence?

[Luclin999]

What you on about? Literally the first thing the paper you quote says is “we don’t have the evidence”

What do you want me to say about that?

“No evidence ? Fine let’s just carry on making suppositions”

Jeez pathetic

Yes, ~your~ comments are.

Stretching goalposts to avoid admitting that you don't have a leg to stand on is the hallmark of the fallacious arguer.

Literally the first thing the paper you quote says is “we don’t have the evidence”

No, literally what it says is... " “We don’t have a ton of studies on advanced lifters therefore these recommendations are slightly speculative”

When you have to distort the truth in order to defend your position, you have already lost the argument.

If you had bothered reading any of the studies linked on the page you were referring to, you would have seen that several of them do indeed show scientific evidence of beginner lifters building muscle while in prolonged deficits... IE. "Noob gains" while dieting.

You know, the whole point of the advice that was being given that you chose to weigh in on in the first place?

And since that original point has now been shown to have been backed up with actual science, your "broscience" comment has empirically been proven false.

(Not that anyone here expects you to admit it).

[Tommy W.]

Yes, ~your~ comments are.

Stretching goalposts to avoid admitting that you don't have a leg to stand on is the hallmark of the fallacious arguer.



No, literally what is says is... " “We don’t have a ton of studies on advanced lifters therefore these recommendations are slightly speculative”

When you have to distort the truth in order to defend your position, you have already lost the argument.

If you had bothered reading any of the studies linked on the page you were referring to, you would have seen that several of them do indeed show scientific evidence of beginner lifters building muscle while in prolonged deficits... IE. "Noob gains" while dieting.

You know, the whole point of the advice that was being given that you chose to weigh in on in the first place?

And since that original point has now been shown to have been backed up with actual science, your "broscience" comment has empirically been proven false.

(Not that anyone here expects you to admit it).

i think Hammersia will be going back to Misc now.

[Corbets]

i think Hammersia will be going back to Misc now.

One can only hope.

Fortunately, enough people chimed in here that any new kid who stops by this thread is unlikely to walk away with the wrong impression... I know there’s no point arguing with a troll (excuse me, “alleged scientist”) to try to convince him or her, but I do prefer not to leave b*ç”*hit unchallenged for other people to find lying around.

[Hammersia]

Yes, ~your~ comments are.

Stretching goalposts to avoid admitting that you don't have a leg to stand on is the hallmark of the fallacious arguer.



No, literally what it says is... " “We don’t have a ton of studies on advanced lifters therefore these recommendations are slightly speculative”

When you have to distort the truth in order to defend your position, you have already lost the argument.

If you had bothered reading any of the studies linked on the page you were referring to, you would have seen that several of them do indeed show scientific evidence of beginner lifters building muscle while in prolonged deficits... IE. "Noob gains" while dieting.

You know, the whole point of the advice that was being given that you chose to weigh in on in the first place?

And since that original point has now been shown to have been backed up with actual science, your "broscience" comment has empirically been proven false.

(Not that anyone here expects you to admit it).

It’s you that has moved the goalposts.

I already quoted the first line of the paper accurately I don’t need to keep typing it out.

The point I’ve disputed is the unsupported claim that gains are harder for more advanced lifters. Why you keep quoting “newbie gains” (eg 1lb lmm per week) then NOT quoting a figure after say five years is a mystery. Is it 2lb lmm per week? Is the rate of muscle accumulation better expressed as a percentage of total body mass rather than absolute numbers?

That’s Science.

[hardyboysare]

What you on about? Literally the first thing the paper you quote says is “we don’t have the evidence”

What do you want me to say about that?

“No evidence ? Fine let’s just carry on making suppositions”

Jeez pathetic

OK maybe I didn't explain myself well enough which I apologise for I shall expand in depth based on your disputing of jk202 statement (which I must admit you have a weird fascination with):-

Really dependent on how long you have been training. A newer lifting can accumulate lean mass at a faster rate than someone who is 5-10 years in.

I am not sure how anyone can dispute this claim based on logical sense, seeing as if an individual could gain the same amount of LBM they did as a novice (which science indicates around 24lbs a year on average) that would suggest a 10yr trained individual would be able to gain 240lbs of LBM which is just not realistic.

Its about reaching closer to your genetic potential which this article by Lyle Mcdonald explains a lot better then I can:-

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...ular-potential

The second point he makes:-

As you get more advanced, the amount of time it takes to gain 5 lbs of muscle increases, you you'll likely be in a surplus longer and accumulate a bit more fat in the process.

Again links into your ability to meet genetic potential which is explained above in pretty great depth by Lyle McDonald and his supporting reviews of other athletes such Alan Aragron and Eric Helms:-

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-con...ms-Article.pdf

Yes you could argue gaining fat is technically not required as you could have an extremely small caloric surplus to cause muscle growth as highlight by Lyle McDonald's breakdown of caloric surplus for growth:-

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...or-muscle-gain

The problem in that in the real world aiming to consume just 60 calorie surplus is just impractical, therefore in order to stop 'spinning your wheels' you will end up consuming more calories then scientifically required as stated in his article:-

Basically they burn off the excess calories through excess activity which means that the energy needed for muscle growth isn’t there. So they may end up chasing their tail a bit as higher calories drives NEAT which means higher calories are needed, etc. They invariably stay lean easily because of this but weight/muscle gain becomes a problem.

That would then cause you to gain more fat as you can't force feed muscle growth. Basically that cover most of the issue in-depth, if you read Lyle Mcdonalds works it explains it very well with the science.

Hope that helps you understand that basically JK202 statement is not broscience its just science.

[jk202]

Hammersia has 97+ percent of his posts on the misc...

80% of those are pestering me

[Hammersia]

80% of those are pestering me

I’m trying to help you actually

[RapidFail]

Really dependent on how long you have been training. A newer lifting can accumulate lean mass at a faster rate than someone who is 5-10 years in.

As you get more advanced, the amount of time it takes to gain 5 lbs of muscle increases, you you'll likely be in a surplus longer and accumulate a bit more fat in the process.

I can give you a couple of examples from my last couple of bulks. I'm perhaps a late novice (despite decidedly novice numbers, my days of being able to add weight to the bar every week are well behind me).

First bulk I went from 155lb and about 14% body fat to 174lb and about 18%.

More recently I went from 165lb and about 15% to 175lb and about 17%.

Both times I gained about 2.5-3lb per month and if my bodyfat estimates are accurate, I gained about half fat, half muscle.